Karnataka High Court
Smt Amudha Rajamurthy vs State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7151/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SMT AMUDHA RAJAMURTHY
F/42, W/O RAJAMURTHY
NO.104, FRUIT STREET,
KAMARAJA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 042.
2. RAJAMURTHY,
M/52, S/O PERUMAL
NO.104, FRUIT STREET
KAMARAJA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 042.
3. MISS. PREMA ,
F/27, D/O RAJAMURTHY
NO.104, FRUIT STREET,
KAMARAJA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 042. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri B.NAGARAJAN, Adv.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
2
ULSOORGATE WOMEN POLICE STATION,
ULSOORGATE
BANGALROE - 560 002
2. SMT. HEMALATHA
F/32, W/O KRISHNAMURTHY
NO.55, HUTCHINS ROAD
3RD CROSS, ST. THOMAS TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 052. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri B.RAJA SUBRAMANYA BHAT, GP FOR R1;
Sri S.MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY, Adv. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AT
ANNEXURE - A IN C.C.NO.14113/2012 ON THE FILE OF
THE VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought for quashing the prosecution launched against them in C.C.No. 14113/2012 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore registered for the 3 offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 506 IPC read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act interalia on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR and in the charge-sheet read as a whole does not make out any case for the offences alleged and that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners and that the allegations made therein are all baseless.
2. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another -vs- State of U.P. and another in Criminal Appeal No. 1674/2012 disposed off on 17.10.2012.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the copies of the charge-sheet papers produced along with this petition, I find no justifiable ground to entertain this petition. The grounds and contentions urged in this petition are all in the nature of defence pleas 4 which are required to be substantiated at the trial. In a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot undertake exercise analyzing the evidence and record a finding thereon. No doubt, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra case referred to supra has held that the prosecution launched arise out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped in, has held that the prosecution should be quashed. However, each case will have to be decided on the facts and circumstances of that case. Having regard to the materials placed on record at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the prosecution. It is open to the petitioners to urge all these contentions before the Trial Court as defence at the trial of the case.
5
5. In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to entertain this petition. Therefore, petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE dh*